Comments on: Opinion: The myth of classical liberalism

By: Tristan Mills

Tristan Mills — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 09:22:23 +0000

There’s a lot of misunderstanding here.
There are two groups which can be called Classical Liberals – those who are liberals in all aspects and those who have adopted the terminology to simply promote economic liberalism.

The former are liberals in the various radical traditions before socialism – their heroes are likely to be Trenchard and Gordon or Cobden and Bright and Bradlaugh or John Lilburn or JS Mill or Jefferson and Jackson. There is no exact definition, but they favour little state intervention in any area of life.

The commenter who tries to claim that libertarianism is about economic liberalism alone is wrong too. Libertarianism is a more radical version of classical liberalism, libertarians are anti-prohibition, anti-aggression, pro-individual, anti-collectivist. They want to be left alone and want to leave others alone. They allow for less intervention by the state and for all actions to be voluntary if possible. They run the gamut from anarcho-capitalists and mutualists (anti-capitalist free marketeers) to what are basically classical liberals (who have abandoned liberalism due to its change in meaning)

Hayek, Friedman and von Mises are all liberals. They were concerned with freedom and liberty. They opposed tyranny, whether of the individual or of the majority.

Democracy poses problems, especially with the massive state which we have today – it easily becomes a tool for a powerful minority to impose their will upon others.
Democracy is a means not an end and as such it can be used for illiberal ends. That is why many Classical Liberals call for a small state – the power should lie with individuals over their own lives not with the state.

In a free market, all transactions are voluntary – that means that it is in fact far more open and democratic than voting once every four or five years for a member of a political elite. There may be problems with markets but these I feel are over stated, especially by those who believe in a strong state as the solution to problems.

I prefer making my own choices and I don’t claim to be able to make choices for others. That is what liberalism is to me. It means I don’t like the state, it forces me to do things I wouldn’t otherwise do and prevents me from doing things I’d like to.

By: real classical liberal

real classical liberal — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 09:43:01 +0000

A brand of liberalism has been described “classical” since the so-called “new liberalism” appeared in the end of the 19th century and the beginning of 20th century. And it was the “new liberals” who initially called themselves “new”. I don’t know whether it was them who begun to call the “old” liberals “classical”, or was it the “old” liberals themselves, but the term was created in order to distinguish them from a grouping calling itself “new”. Nowadays the “new” liberals usually use some other prefix, like “modern”, “social”, “welfare”, “agalitarian”, “left”, etc, or none, but “classical” has survived.

By: a radical writes

a radical writes — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 08:45:44 +0000

As I’ve said earlier this isn’t so much an attack on right winged liberals (who I happen to get on quite well with in general) but an attack on the idea that liberalism can be described as classical. I’ve also been repeatedly quite annoyed by very conservative and authoritarian people(Mrs Thatcher for instance) who use the phrase ‘classical liberal’ to describe themselves when there is nothing liberal there to describe but think being a liberal equivolates to being a free marketer.

By: James S

James S — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 06:36:53 +0000

The ‘what is liberal’ debate is an old chestnut.

I know what I am and I know why – I don’t need a label to define myself and my personal happiness does not depend on whatever label I choose to identify myself with, although it may determine it in the long run.

Intellectual theorising over systematised doctrines and purist philosophical positions is to miss the point of arguing a case – that of throwing specific perspectives into contrast to enable measurement and subsequent judgement on merit – extrapolating to the extremities of logical consequence is simply contrary to the nature of enlightenment!

History and society cannot be set apart from the works that analyse them, likewise the context of associations and influences built around them inform and prejudice the trends of current opinion due to their selectivity and emphasis.

Whatever any group or individual believes must still be reconciled with existence in a daily reality with infinite variety.

This is undeniable and inescapable – it is inevitable.

Truth is not restrictive or static; truth grows and changes – it doesn’t fit any preconcieved formula.

And this is the inherent problem, we may choose to call this intangible ‘liberty’, while others may call it something else, but it will be the party with the best discernable handle of an accurate description that will lead the upswell of popular support – so we must win this argument and own our own identity.

You may not be able to describe it, but you know it when it hits you – like when a bell chimes, when a goal is scored, when anything exactly hits the spot required.

Life+love=liberty

By: James

James — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 00:27:45 +0000

Interseting thread….but needing some clafification on aspects of Liberalism and what it s really about…go here for great info..

http://www.liberalvalues.org.nz/

http://freestudents.blogspot.com/

http://www.tvliberty.blogspot.com/

By: Liberal First

Liberal First — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 23:01:55 +0000

When I read things like this it just leaves me wondering whether the author wants the Liberal Democrats to be a broad liberal coalition of all our talents, with some chance of forming a government, or some narrow socialist libertarian sect questing for doctrinal purity on the sidelines.

The notion that the party can be divided neatly into factions, one of which that only cares about economics, the other only about social progess, is evidently codswallop.

The party largely holds a common consensus on what could be described as the social, personal & political aspects of liberalism. We believe in unleashing human potential, in individual freedom, rights, sustainability, international law, subsidiarity etc. the list of where we agree is long.

Where we seem to have most difficulty is on questions on how we get to what is often a shared belief in a liberal outcome. Sometimes it’s no more than the way we talk about it.

Does John for example sincerely believe ‘classical liberals’ don’t believe in redistribution?

It’s how you do it and why that often causes debate. I can’t for example see many ‘economic liberals’ having a problem with the Pupil’s Premium that targets additional educational resource to children from deprived backgrounds or removing tax breaks like taper relief.

I personally feel in today’s environment that the left and right of liberalism would be better defined as compassionate and aspirational in respect of emphasis than social and economic or classical.

For example evidently compassionate liberals are not 100% hostile to markets, more their failures and brutalism. Aspirational liberals don’t disagree with social justice or active government, more how they are defined and operate.

The crude divison of our party and guiding philosophy though into inaccurate charicatures of ultra-socialism and ultra-libertarianism is though wrong and unilluminating. In that regard this was a disappointing and ill-judged article.

By: Geoffrey Payne

Geoffrey Payne — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 21:02:13 +0000

On that last point about Mrs Thatcher being a liberal; her record was mixed but on the who she as much an anti-liberal as she was anti-socialist.
On the positive side she supported a women’s right to abortion. On the negative side she introduced clause 28, she vilified gypsies and “immigrants”, supported apartheid, and firmly believed a women’s place was at home – even to the extent of having herself photographed doing the housework.
She believed in “Victorian Values” and absurdly believed that the permissive 1960s was caused by the decadence of socialism and that this could be rolled back by the free market. In fact precisley the opposite was the case – there are profits to be made from breaking taboos and the commercial sex industry is one of the most aggressive and ruthless fringes of capitalism.
From her perspective this was an unintended consequence, and we as Liberals should be careful that we are also not on some kind of receiving end if we decide to be as dogmatic as she was.
The Stern report identified global warming as a “market failure” and it is no surprise that free market ideologues such as Friedman, ASI, and IEA and other have had a blindspot as far as protecting the environment is concerned. You often hear then relying on unscientific arguments such as “Person X made an erroneous prediction 30 years ago that Y would happen, and look it didn’t, so therefore there is nothing to be concerned about”.
At a time we are determined to be the foremost green party on the political landscape – for very good reason – it would be absurd if our economic theories take as into the opposite direction.

By: leftist classical liberal

leftist classical liberal — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:35:27 +0000

Since 1938, Friedrich von Hayek and some other liberals distinquished themselves from classical liberals by calling themselves neoliberals. They were a “leftist” variant of classical liberals, the difference being that they wanted the state to exert some control on the abuse of monopoly power.

Milton Friedman is also a classical liberal. There is much classical liberalism in the Liberal Democrat party too, but that has been mixed with social democracy.

Milton Friedman has condemned Pinochet’s and China’s dictatorships and all other dictatorships too. Thatcher was not liberal but she was more liberal than the average Conservative, both economically and socially. E.g., she was among the first to support the decriminalization of homosexuality.

Not all classical liberals supported democracy, though it was often considered as the least evil, the form of government least dangerous to liberty.

Classical liberals generally supported Laissez-Faire. They include those mentioned above and also Anders Chydenius, Voltaire, Jeremy Bentham and Thomas Jefferson.

By: a radical writes

a radical writes — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 16:12:56 +0000

Re Terry. My point is that the label classical liberal is misleadng because modern ‘new liberals’ ascribe just as much to fundamental classical liberal thinking as libertarians do. the only difference seems to be on governmnt intervention issues which has little o do in my view with the fundamentals of early lberal thought. However I have met many people who describe themselves as classical liberals who ar instead just rather right wing market conservatives, it seems to me like a misleading and often abused label.

By: real classical liberal

real classical liberal — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 13:24:58 +0000

I’d like to define more closely my point of view on the big corporations:

A monopoly position is not a problem as such, if it is achieved and retained without force, theft, fraud or breaking of contracts. The problem occures, if a company abuses its monopoly position in a non-acceptable way.

Likewise, all people (except for babies, the paralysed, etc.) have the ability to kill other people, but having that ability isn’t yet a crime. Only when one actually kills another person, he commits a crime.

By: Tim Leunig

Tim Leunig — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 12:37:25 +0000

This is a rather good thread: well done to all. It is rare that disagre with Jock Coats but I don’t this any of us want to return to nineteenth century levels of governents spending (about, say, an eighth of today’s levels). The market economy rewards luck as well as work: if you are lucky to be born bright and in a well functioning family you may well be all set, but if you are not, well, the market economy without redistribution can be pretty brutal. That is not a vision that many LDs would want to subcribe too: we want everyone to have a chance, and we want support for those who for whom things go wrong. That is why our new poverty proposals (on which I worked) include more money for education for kids from underachieving backgrounds) and makes sure more money gets through to the poorest. But it does this without costing more, by chopping millions of middle class people out of tax credits.

By: Terry

Terry — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 11:42:58 +0000

John Dixon, I think that you are mistaken about whom most people call classical liberals. Your friend may call himself a classical liberal, but I think that most people who know what classical liberalism means, wouldn’t do so.

By: a radical writes

a radical writes — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 08:17:01 +0000

That I think is what separates true right wing liberals from what a lot of people call classical liberals.

By: Joe Taylor

Joe Taylor — Sun, 29 Jul 2007 00:19:40 +0000

“Would you agree with me though that the unfettered power of private corporations is just as threaening to liberty as are unnaccountable beurocracies?”

Of course – any true liberal (of any kind) should oppose the monopoly power of big business – which not only threatens individual liberty, but does so precisely because it distorts markets.

When scarcity develops in a market system, it drives up prices and restricts individual choice. In any such system, there are always plenty of players trying to create and exploit positions of artificial scarcity, such as:

* Software giants trying to exploit a monopoly position and evade anti-trust laws

* Farming cartels lobbying for subsidies

* Manufacturing industries asking for tariffs to be placed on imported goods

* Oil-producing nations colluding to restrict international supply

* High-street computer game retailers fixing prices

Free-market aficionados do indeed oppose this sort of behaviour, despite the fact that they are what the companies that are providing these services would prefer to happen.

Free-marketeers should also fight strongly to protect consumers’ property rights, personal data, health and wellbeing against any malicious players in the market – because without trust, there is no market.

In short, free-market is profoundly not the same thing as pro-business.

By: real classical liberal

real classical liberal — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 22:03:55 +0000

John Dixon: “Would you agree with me though that the unfettered power of private corporations is just as threaening to liberty as are unnaccountable beurocracies?”

That depends whether they use coercion against the individuals or not. If they have gained their position and retain it in free market, by for instance providing better services and products with lower prices than their competitors, and the consumers have voluntarily yielded this position for them for the same reasons, I can’t see there is a problem. However, at the moment the private corporation begins, by using force, to limit the liberty of the individual to make another choice, it becomes just as much a threat to the liberty than a criminal organisation.

By: real classical liberal

real classical liberal — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:53:40 +0000

P.S: About capitalism vs. democracy, I indeed can see the contradiction. I remember than in seventies there were communist groupings demanding that the means of production should be submitted under democratic control, meaning nationalisation. Is this what you meant? If yes, I must say that I understand why Mises and Hayek prefered capitalism over democracy.

By: a radical writes

a radical writes — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:53:02 +0000

thanks real classical liberal, I do better understand Hayek’s view on things now. I disagree with Hayek it has to be said, and although I understand the limitation’s of democracy I believe liberty is jut as well obtained for people by them voting for what they want in society as well as them buying what they want in private. would you agree with me though that the unfettered power of private corporations is just as threaening to liberty as are unnaccountable beurocracies?

By: real classical liberal

real classical liberal — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 21:35:58 +0000

Barry Stocker, I apologise if I have misunderstood you, but that's sure how I interpreted what you were saying, and no doubt also many others. However, when criticising me of misinterpreting you, you might yourself want to be more careful in claiming what I have actually said. I wasn't playing down the suspicion of democracy in Mises and Hayek. My point was, that that suspicion was justified, and I certainly wasn't claiming that liberals (I consider myself one) always favour democracy as a method of discussion, on the contrary I was criticising such a thought already in the first sentence I addressed to you. BTW, beside Humboldt, it might be worth mentioning the criticism to democracy made by John Stuart Mill, to which Ann refered in 15. I was refering in an earlier posting to the essay "Liberalism" by Hayek. In the Systematic part of this essay, chapter 13, "Liberalism and democracy" Hayek writes: "By the insistence on a law which is the same for all, and the consequent opposition to all legal privilege, liberalism came to be closely associated with the movement for democracy. In the struggle for constitutional government in the nineteenth century, the liberal and the democratic movements indeed were often indistinguishable. Yet in the course of time the consequence of the fact that the two doctrines were in the last resort concerned with different issues became more and more apparent. Liberalism is concerned with the functions of government and particularly with the limitation of all its powers. Democracy is concerned with the question of who is to direct government. Liberalism requires that all power, and therefore also that of the majority, be limited. Democracy came to regard current majority opinion as the only criterion of the legitimacy of the powers of government. The difference between the two principles stands out most clearly if we consider their opposites: with democracy it is authoritarian government; with liberalism it is totalitarianism. Neither of the two systems necessarily excludes the opposite of the other: a democracy may well wield totalitarian powers, and it is at least conceivable that an authoritarian government might act on liberal principles. Liberalism is thus incompatible with unlimited democracy, just as it is incompatible with all other forms of unlimited government. It presupposes the limitation of the powers even of the representatives of the majority by requiring a commitment to principles either explicitly laid down in a constitution or accepted by general opinion so as to effectively confine legislation. Thus, though the consistent application of liberal principles leads to democracy, democracy will preserve liberalism only if, and so long as, the majority refrains from using its powers to confer on its supporters special advantages which cannot be similarly offered to all citizens. This might be achieved in a representative assembly whose powers were confined to passing laws in the sense of general rules of just conduct, on which agreement among a majority is likely to exist. But it is most unlikely in an assembly which habitually directs the specific measures of government. In such a representative assembly, which combines true legislative with governmental powers, and which is therefore in the exercise of the latter not limited by rules that it cannot alter, the majority is not likely to be based on true agreement on principles, but will probably consist of coalitions of various organized interests which will mutually concede to each other special advantages. Where, as is almost inevitable in a representative body with unlimited powers, decisions are arrived at by a bartering of special benefits to the different groups, and where the formation of a majority capable of governing depends on such bartering, it is indeed almost inconceivable that these powers will be used only in the true general interests. But while for these reasons it seems almost certain that unlimited democracy will abandon liberal principles in favour of discriminatory measures benefiting the various groups supporting the majority, it is also doubtful whether in the long run democracy can preserve itself if it abandons liberal principles. If government assumes tasks which are too extensive and complex to be effectively guided by majority decisions, it seems inevitable that effective powers will devolve to a bureaucratic apparatus increasingly independent of democratic control. It is therefore not unlikely that the abandonment of liberalism by democracy will in the long run also lead to the disappearance of democracy. There can, in particular, be little doubt that the kind of directed economy towards which democracy seems to be tending requires for its effective conduct a government with authoritarian powers. (Sorry to include such a lengthy quotation, but I thought it was necessary to better understand the suspicion of democracy expressed by Hayek.)

By: Barry Stocker

Barry Stocker — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:54:35 +0000

Dear Real Classical Liberal, you are criticising me for things I didn’t say as well as playing down the suspicion of democracy in Mises and Hayek and many of their followers. Both, but particularly Mises, are frequently uncomfortable with the criticisms that are made of capitalism in democracies, and evidently consider the free exercise of such views more dangerous to liberty than even some of the famous absolutist monarchies of European history. I can provide quotations if needed. They are clearly happy with political systems which do not have universal suffrage and sovereign elected institutions if they give priority to private property. I did not say that Liberalism has to be democratic. I do however believe that liberalism that is not democratic, or is not at least paving the way for democracy, is going to betray the best insights of liberalism. What I said rather implied that Hobbes is the real ancestor of anti or a-democratic liberalism, which Mises and Hayek often came close to. Another example of an a-democratic liberal would be Humboldt who in some respects I admire very much, ands whose *Limits of State Government* I have read at least in part several times. Humboldt thinks his ideal of liberty and dialogue is best served by a monarchy concerned with defence of the community rather than politics, and with no democratic element. You are therefore incorrect in claiming that ‘Liberals’ always favour democracy as a method of discussion (unless you think democracy means discussion in the community outside political institutions which would be eccentric). Obviously you are entitled to defend your vision of liberalism, you might be a bit more careful in imputing claims to other people and in your account of possible interpretations of liberalism.

By: real classical liberal

real classical liberal — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 20:49:09 +0000

Perhaps there are so many free marketeers here because we have noticed the improving free market credentials of the Lib Dems. They have still a lot to do, though.

John Dixon: “The flaws in markets I find are often ignored by ‘classical liberals’ while the flaws in democracy are often exagerated.”

Funny you should say that, I have a feeling that you are ignoring the flaws in democracy and exagerating the flaws in markets. And you seem to artificially be separating the economic freedom from the personal freedom, like the economic decisions wouldn’t affect the individuals just as much. The reason why free markets are good is because they are the only economic system, where each individual can choose for him or herself. Markets are actually simply the sum of many indivual choices. In democracy each individual can, to be sure, participate to the decision making, but once the decision is made, everybody has to comply to it, and nobody can make his or her own, individual decisions. As Milton Friedman has said, “Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

John Dixon: “when it comes to life and death situations such as healthcare, fire control, etc the market is completely incapable of handling these functions and classical liberals I find are often incapable of accepting this.”

Speaking about life and death situations, what about food industry and distribution, how can such vital functions be left to the markets? After all, people can live for a while without healthcare, but not without food. There are countries, where health care is produced (at least mostly) by the private sector, and the state only guarantees that everybody can afford it. For instance such countries as the Netherlands and Germany buy their citizens a health insurance, if they can’t afford one for themselves. The rest is left for the markets, which produce good quality services efficiently.

As for fire control, fire brigades are perhaps some of the few function of the state on which most classical liberals can agree about, though of course this service could also be bought from the private sector. If there is an oblicatory fire insurance, it might even be profitable to have private fire brigades, which would in the case of a fire then invoice the insurance company.

I can’t understand, why for some people claiming to be liberals it is so important that the state owns the means of production when it comes for instance to the health care or some other vital industry, though I can understand why socialists should think so. If the state owns the means of production in some sector, it limits the choice of individuals to choose where they buy what they need, and decreases the variety of products to those, which the state sees necessary, rightly or wrongly. What’s more, it prevents many private entrepreneurs entering the markets and competing with the quality and the price of their products, which again means less choice for the consumers. Don’t you think that holding on the publicly produced health care despite seeing the benefits of the private production is the real dogmatism?